And I'm the co-parent of five children -- ages pre-school to young adult -- only one of which is biologically mine, none of which are both my wife's and mine together, and one of which is neither of ours, biologically.

In other words, please pay attention to the whole of what I'm saying, in context, instead of making objections to only something I say, and trying to make it as if I'm claiming things I'm not.

Not to pick on you, personally, but that's happened numerous times on this thread, and I'm weary of it.

I said, clearly, the circumstances of life are unpredictable, and alternative family structures work. And, in many cases, work very well.

I never, ever said everybody has to conform to only one idea.

Now that those things are, I hope, abundantly clear...

My point all along is, tying to pretend as if those aforementioned factors unique to boilogical mother-father parenting either simply are not real, or really don't matter, is naive and pandering.

As reasonable people, we have to acknowledge, that in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father households, will have advantages that other children do not. Therefore, society has, for good reason, favored and privledged that arrangment.

And when you provide some objective evidence that this is true we will consider it.

That is in no way shape or form intended as a slight against gay, single, divorced, widowed, foster, step or adoptive parents -- or grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children, for that matter.

It's simply an anknowledgment of fact.

Except that you have not presented it as fact. You have only presented your subjective opinion that these things are better. When you were presented with scientific studies disproving your claims you hand-waved them away by claiming they were "soft science." When asked to provide any empirical evidence in support of your claim, you failed to produce anything.

Appealing to studies done on sample populations against specific critera, as being totally dismissive of universal axioms, imbedded in biology, is neither scientific or rational.

The very fact that homosexuals exist proves that it is not a universal maxim.

That's non-sensical, and completely irrelevant to the central point.

The existence of homosexuals proves only that a predisposition to homosexual desires or attractions exist, and manifests in a tiny percentage of the population.

Besides citing a few studies, done on sample populations, rife with circumstantial variables, please provide your rational explaination for why these following four things are either purely imaginary, or simply don't matter:

*The importance of having both a mother and a father.

*The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.

*The differences between the sexes, and how they compliment each other in parenting.

*The biological parent-child bond.

Furthermore, avoiding antecdotes regarding execptions of specific instance, please provide your rational explaination for why, in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- with all four of those factors present -- don't have advantages other children do not.

The very fact that homosexuals exist proves that it is not a universal maxim.

That's non-sensical, and completely irrelevant to the central point.

What is your "universal maxim" then, if what I said doesn't disprove it?

The existence of homosexuals proves only that a predisposition to homosexual desires or attractions exist, and manifests in a tiny percentage of the population.

Besides citing a few studies, done on sample populations, rife with circumstantial variables, please provide your rational explaination for why these following four things are either purely imaginary, or simply don't matter:

Does your hand get tired from all that waving?

*The importance of having both a mother and a father.

*The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.

*The differences between the sexes, and how they compliment each other in parenting.

*The biological parent-child bond.

Furthermore, avoiding antecdotes regarding execptions of specific instance, please provide your rational explaination for why, in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- with all four of those factors present -- don't have advantages other children do not.

Sorry, but the onus is on you, as the one making the positive claim, to provide evidence for said claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me to prove something doesn't exist when you have provided no empirical evidence that it does exist.

The very fact that homosexuals exist proves that it is not a universal maxim.

That's non-sensical, and completely irrelevant to the central point.

What is your "universal maxim" then, if what I said doesn't disprove it?

The existence of homosexuals proves only that a predisposition to homosexual desires or attractions exist, and manifests in a tiny percentage of the population.

Besides citing a few studies, done on sample populations, rife with circumstantial variables, please provide your rational explaination for why these following four things are either purely imaginary, or simply don't matter:

Does your hand get tired from all that waving?

*The importance of having both a mother and a father.

*The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.

*The differences between the sexes, and how they compliment each other in parenting.

*The biological parent-child bond.

Furthermore, avoiding antecdotes regarding execptions of specific instance, please provide your rational explaination for why, in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- with all four of those factors present -- don't have advantages other children do not.

Sorry, but the onus is on you, as the one making the positive claim, to provide evidence for said claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me to prove something doesn't exist when you have provided no empirical evidence that it does exist.

Sorry, but the onus is on you, as the one making the positive claim, to provide evidence for said claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me to prove something doesn't exist when you have provided no empirical evidence that it does exist.

I think we do too for the most part. I have never seen you post that homosexuals should not have equal civil rights. As far as homosexual couples are given the same privileges and responsibilities as heterosexual couples I don't care what they call that union. I think marriage should be a civil ceremony as it is in some European countries. If a couple wants a religious ceremony they can have one afterwards.

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case." Thomas Paine: Dissertation on First Principles of Government (July 1795)

Appealing to studies done on sample populations against specific critera[sic], as being totally dismissive of universal axioms, imbedded in biology, is neither scientific or rational.

Have you read any of these studies? How do you know they are based on the criteria you just made up? What you claim are "universal axioms" are not axioms at all, but your beliefs. Your dismissal of these studies is neither rational nor scientific.

Just for starters, they are far too many circumstantial variables.

Such as?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

A man and a man fall in love. A women and woman fall in love. Just as we think of a man and a woman falling in love. The man and women can legally marry. The man and man can not. women and woman can not, And they should be able to. Period. No variables.

It is a civil right. It is being denied. The majority of Americans are beginning to see why it is wrong to deny people civil rights based on orientation. That is what this topic is about nothing else.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson